Person:

Kesselheim, Aaron

Background: Litigation documents reveal that pharmaceutical companies have paid physicians to promote off-label uses of their products through a number of different avenues. It is unknown whether physicians and scientists who have such conflicts of interest adequately disclose such relationships in the scientific publications they author. Methods and Findings: We collected whistleblower complaints alleging illegal off-label marketing from the US Department of Justice and other publicly available sources (date range: 1996–2010). We identified physicians and scientists described in the complaints as having financial relationships with defendant manufacturers, then searched Medline for articles they authored in the subsequent three years. We assessed disclosures made in articles related to the off-label use in question, determined the frequency of adequate disclosure statements, and analyzed characteristics of the authors (specialty, author position) and articles (type, connection to off-label use, journal impact factor, citation count/year). We identified 39 conflicted individuals in whistleblower complaints. They published 404 articles related to the drugs at issue in the whistleblower complaints, only 62 (15%) of which contained an adequate disclosure statement. Most articles had no disclosure (43%) or did not mention the pharmaceutical company (40%). Adequate disclosure rates varied significantly by article type, with commentaries less likely to have adequate disclosure compared to articles reporting original studies or trials (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.02–0.67, p = 0.02). Over half of the authors (22/39, 56%) made no adequate disclosures in their articles. However, four of six authors with ≥25 articles disclosed in about one-third of articles (range: 10/36–8/25 [28%–32%]). Conclusions: One in seven authors identified in whistleblower complaints as involved in off-label marketing activities adequately disclosed their conflict of interest in subsequent journal publications. This is a much lower rate of adequate disclosure than has been identified in previous studies. The non-disclosure patterns suggest shortcomings with authors and the rigor of journal practices.

Background: Professional societies use metrics to evaluate medical schools' policies regarding interactions of students and faculty with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. We compared these metrics and determined which US medical schools' industry interaction policies were associated with student behaviors. Methods and Findings: Using survey responses from a national sample of 1,610 US medical students, we compared their reported industry interactions with their schools' American Medical Student Association (AMSA) PharmFree Scorecard and average Institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) Conflicts of Interest Policy Database score. We used hierarchical logistic regression models to determine the association between policies and students' gift acceptance, interactions with marketing representatives, and perceived adequacy of faculty–industry separation. We adjusted for year in training, medical school size, and level of US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We used LASSO regression models to identify specific policies associated with the outcomes. We found that IMAP and AMSA scores had similar median values (1.75 [interquartile range 1.50–2.00] versus 1.77 [1.50–2.18], adjusted to compare scores on the same scale). Scores on AMSA and IMAP shared policy dimensions were not closely correlated (gift policies, r = 0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.44; marketing representative access policies, r = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36–0.63). Students from schools with the most stringent industry interaction policies were less likely to report receiving gifts (AMSA score, odds ratio [OR]: 0.37, 95% CI 0.19–0.72; IMAP score, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19–1.04) and less likely to interact with marketing representatives (AMSA score, OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15–0.69; IMAP score, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14–0.95) than students from schools with the lowest ranked policy scores. The association became nonsignificant when fully adjusted for NIH funding level, whereas adjusting for year of education, size of school, and publicly versus privately funded school did not alter the association. Policies limiting gifts, meals, and speaking bureaus were associated with students reporting having not received gifts and having not interacted with marketing representatives. Policy dimensions reflecting the regulation of industry involvement in educational activities (e.g., continuing medical education, travel compensation, and scholarships) were associated with perceived separation between faculty and industry. The study is limited by potential for recall bias and the cross-sectional nature of the survey, as school curricula and industry interaction policies may have changed since the time of the survey administration and study analysis. Conclusions: As medical schools review policies regulating medical students' industry interactions, limitations on receipt of gifts and meals and participation of faculty in speaking bureaus should be emphasized, and policy makers should pay greater attention to less research-intensive institutions. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Background: Statins are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, but patients do not fully adhere to them. Objective: To determine whether patients are more adherent to generic statins versus brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes. Design: Observational, propensity score–matched, new-user cohort study. Setting: Linked electronic data from medical and pharmacy claims. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with prescription drug coverage between 2006 and 2008. Intervention: Initiation of a generic or brand-name statin. Measurements: Adherence to statin therapy (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC] up to 1 year) and a composite outcome comprising hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome or stroke and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute rate differences were estimated. Results: A total of 90 111 patients who initiated a statin during the study was identified; 83 731 (93%) initiated a generic drug, and 6380 (7%) initiated a brand-name drug. The mean age of patients was 75.6 years, and most (61%) were female. The average PDC was 77% for patients in the generic group and 71% for those in the brand-name group (P < 0.001). An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). The absolute difference was −1.53 events per 100 person-years (CI, −2.69 to −0.19 events per 100 person-years). Limitation: Results may not be generalizable to other populations with different incomes or drug benefit structures. Conclusion: Compared with those initiating brand-name statins, patients initiating generic statins were more likely to adhere and had a lower rate of a composite clinical outcome. Primary Funding Source: Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Background: Medical device innovation remains poorly understood, and policymakers disagree over how to incentivize early development. We sought to elucidate the components of transformative health care innovation by conducting an in-depth case study of development of a key medical device: coronary artery stents. Methods and Findings: We conducted semi-structured interviews with the innovators whose work contributed to the development of coronary artery stents who we identified based on a review of the regulatory, patent, and medical literature. Semi-structured interviews with each participant covered the interviewee’s personal involvement in coronary artery stent development, the roles of institutions and other individuals in the development process, the interplay of funding and intellectual property in the interviewee’s contribution, and finally reflections on lessons arising from the experience. Transcripts were analyzed using standard coding techniques and the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis. Conclusions: We found that the first coronary artery stents emerged from three teams: Julio Palmaz and Richard Schatz, Cesare Gianturco and Gary Roubin, and Ulrich Sigwart. First, these individual physician-inventors saw the need for coronary artery stents in their clinical practice. In response, they developed prototypes with the support of academic medical centers leading to early validation studies. Larger companies entered afterwards with engineering support. Patents became paramount once the technology diffused. The case of coronary stents suggests that innovation policy should focus on supporting early physician-inventors at academic centers.

Background: Generic prescription drugs made by different manufacturers may vary in color or shape, and switching among these drug products may interrupt medication use. Objective: To determine whether nonpersistent use of generic drugs among patients with cardiovascular disease after myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with inconsistent appearance of their medications. Design: Cohort and nested case–control studies. Setting: Claims from a commercial health insurance database in the United States. Patients: Patients discharged after hospitalization for MI between 2006 and 2011 who initiated treatment with a generic β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II–receptor blocker, or statin. Case patients discontinued their index medication for at least 1 month; control patients continued treatment. Control patients were matched to case patients on therapeutic class, number of dispensings before nonpersistence, sex, and age. Measurements: Rates of changes in pill color and shape during the year after MI were calculated. Next, 2 refills preceding nonpersistence were evaluated to determine whether pill color or shape had changed. Odds of discordance among case and control patients were compared using conditional logistic regression. Results: A total of 29% of patients (3286 of 11 513) had a change in pill shape or color during the study. Statins had the most changes in appearance, whereas β-blockers had the fewest. A total of 4573 episodes of nonpersistence was matched to 19 881 control episodes. The odds of nonpersistence in case patients increased by 34% after a change in pill color (adjusted odds ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.59]) and 66% after a change in pill shape (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66 [CI, 1.43 to 1.94]). Limitation: Only 3 categories of drugs indicated after MI were evaluated, and clinical outcomes were not addressed. Conclusion: Variation in the appearance of generic pills is associated with nonpersistent use of these essential drugs after MI among patients with cardiovascular disease. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Harvard Program in Therapeutic Science.

Aaron Kesselheim and colleagues examine potential strategies to promote greater prescribing of generic drugs and follow-on biologics

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare treatment persistence and rates of seizure-related events in patients who initiate antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy with a generic versus a brand-name product. METHODS: We used linked electronic medical and pharmacy claims data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who initiated one of five AEDs (clonazepam, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, zonisamide). We matched initiators of generic versus brand-name versions of these drugs using a propensity score that accounted for demographic, clinical, and health service utilization variables. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to compare rates of seizure-related emergency room (ER) visit or hospitalization (primary outcome) and ER visit for bone fracture or head injury (secondary outcome) between the matched generic and brand-name initiators. We also compared treatment persistence, measured as time to first 14-day treatment gap, between generic and brand-name initiators. RESULTS: We identified 19,760 AED initiators who met study eligibility criteria; 18,306 (93%) initiated a generic AED. In the matched cohort, we observed 47 seizure-related hospitalizations and ER visits among brand-name initiators and 31 events among generic initiators, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.96). Similar results were observed for the secondary clinical endpoint and across sensitivity analyses. Mean time to first treatment gap was 124.2days (standard deviation [sd], 125.8) for brand-name initiators and 137.9 (sd, 148.6) for generic initiators. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients who initiated generic AEDs had fewer adverse seizure-related clinical outcomes and longer continuous treatment periods before experiencing a gap than those who initiated brand-name versions.

Background: Generic drugs are cost-effective versions of brand-name drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following proof of pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence. Generic drugs are widely prescribed by physicians, although there is disagreement over the clinical comparability of generic drugs to brand-name drugs within the physician community. The objective of this survey was to assess physicians' perceptions of generic drugs and the generic drug approval process.

Methods and Findings: A survey was administered to a national sample of primary care internists and specialists between August 2014 and January 2015. In total, 1,152 physicians comprising of internists with no reported specialty certification and those with specialty certification in hematology, infectious diseases, and endocrinology were surveyed. The survey assessed physicians’ perceptions of the FDA’s generic drug approval process, as well as their experiences prescribing six generic drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 using product-specific approval pathways and selected comparator drugs. Among 718 respondents (62% response rate), a majority were comfortable with the FDA’s process in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs overall (91%) and with letting the FDA determine which tests were necessary to determine bioequivalence in a particular drug (92%). A minority (13–26%) still reported being uncomfortable prescribing generic drugs approved using product-specific pathways. Overall, few physicians heard reports of concerns about generic versions of the study drugs or their comparators, with no differences between the two groups. Physicians tended to hear about concerns about the safety or effectiveness of generic drugs from patients, pharmacists, and physician colleagues.

Conclusions: Physicians hold largely positive views of the FDA's generic drug approval process even when some questioned the performance of certain generic drugs in comparison to brand-name drugs. Better education about the generic drug approval process and standards may alleviate concerns among the physician community and support the delivery of cost-effective health care.

Objectives: This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials. Design: Review of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators’ experiences with adaptive designs. Results: 142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs. Conclusions: Wider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis.